Page 6 of 9

Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:09 pm
by lwjr
Treadway21 wrote:The Big12 will lobby for 6 or 8 teams rather than expanding. Mark my words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean drop to 6-8 teams? Why? I would think they lose money by dropping teams. Or am I looking at it wrong

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:12 pm
by dr. rick
B12 Response: Big 12 pointing fingers, mulling change after being left out of College Football Playoff

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-lef ... ncaaf.html

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:13 pm
by Treadway21
No - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:25 pm
by lwjr
Treadway21 wrote:No - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:27 pm
by lwjr
dr. rick wrote:B12 Response: Big 12 pointing fingers, mulling change after being left out of College Football Playoff

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-lef ... ncaaf.html

So much for, All for one, one for all". lol

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:46 pm
by SoCal_Pony
Treadway21 wrote:No - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sounds good TW, from the B12 perspective that is.

SEC, with 14 teams and therefore a more difficult path to championship, may not agree.

What you are saying in effect is that the Texas / OU winner gets a playoff bid 80%+ of the time.

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:48 pm
by Pony81
But then amongst the P5, I'm sure when the Big 12 shows up and lobbies for a waiver to the 12 team playoff requirement it will go over like a lead ballon.

There is a reason for the 12 team requirement - that's to prevent smaller leagues equal access.

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:50 pm
by SoCal_Pony
Oh, and 1 last thing.

With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B12 membership are 10x greater than ours.

Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario.

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:51 pm
by StallionsModelT
I know it won't happen but the Big 12 could logistically add four schools

SMU
Houston
Cincinnati
BYU

Do away with the silly North/South thing and do like the Big 10 does with their divisions.

Again, I know it won't happen but it would certainly be cool :)

Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:52 pm
by Treadway21
SoCal,

It's not what I want. I just think UT and OU want to keep the money and still guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs.

They could care less that Baylor and TCU missed out of the playoffs this year. The only thing bad for them is it is a blow to the conferences reputation. But that just reaffirms in their minds that they run the conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:53 pm
by StallionsModelT
SoCal_Pony wrote:Oh, and 1 last thing.

With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B10 membership are 10x greater than ours.

Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario.



If that were indeed to go down then yes....ultimate nightmare scenario.

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:58 pm
by Puckhead48E
Pony81 wrote:But then amongst the P5, I'm sure when the Big 12 shows up and lobbies for a waiver to the 12 team playoff requirement it will go over like a lead ballon.

There is a reason for the 12 team requirement - that's to prevent smaller leagues equal access.


Everything they have done in the past 50 years is to prevent equal access. Nothing new to see here, except they ended up hurting one of their own. Only, it doesn't really matter because it is the little brothers in a "special" conference so they won't mind too much. Only reason the rest of the Big 12 cares is the loss of money. Almost sounds like greedy hopes of getting 2 teams and 2 paydays led to getting none.

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:59 pm
by dr. rick
Treadway21 wrote:SoCal,

It's not what I want. I just think UT and OU want to keep the money and still guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs.

They could care less that Baylor and TCU missed out of the playoffs this year. The only thing bad for them is it is a blow to the conferences reputation. But that just reaffirms in their minds that they run the conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


+1 Exactly what happened yesterday (co-champions) and today!

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:03 pm
by CoxMustangFan
StallionsModelT wrote:
SoCal_Pony wrote:Oh, and 1 last thing.

With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B10 membership are 10x greater than ours.

Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario.



If that were indeed to go down then yes....ultimate nightmare scenario.


Why is it even being discussed? Neither school is -- or will be within the next 50+ years -- an AAU member. I have a better chance of becoming the starting center for the Mavs.

Re: Not Good for SMU

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:04 pm
by Pony81
I think Briles is spot on. One true champion........ No wait..... One true co- champion.

That is just BS. Baylor is the Big 12 champion. Now if UT was in a similar spot as Baylor you an believe their would be one true champion.